speedking

I can't see any of the so-called green alternatives providing anywhere near the amount of energy that will be required to replace the existing stations when they are decommissioned in 5-10 years time.

I don't think a Chernobyl could ever happen here.

The French have plenty of Nuclear Power Stations on our doorstep anyway.

I don't want to be dependent on Russian sourced gas for my electricity.

Demand is only going one way.

And thats before we consider greenhouse emissions and meeting the Kyoto agreement.

After the election I think the plans for new nuclear will be revealed.

Bring them on I say.

D70

Yes build more of them. Out of the way somewhere other than the SE of England where all the money and most people live though.

SJ_Skyline

Can't find the graph online that had "cost" per kW generated over 10 years or so in £'s it showed nuclear by far the cheapest and tidal / offshore wind the most expensive.

Of course "cost" is not always measured in pounds!


Chernobyl could not happen the same way here as we don't use the same sort of reactor. Of course there are other ways in which catastophic meltdown can happen, or even release of radioactive material.
- Causes of chernobyl

IMHO the precieved public fear of nuclear power is unjustified, fueled mainly by lack of knowledge of the facts.

TelBoy

Has to be nuclear. If we can't run nuclear power stations effectively in the 21st Century, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

The terrorist threat is my only caveat, and perhaps the treatment of waste, about which i know little regarding recent developments/advancements.

One other thing, totally off-topic - when will the UK drag its **** into the modern world with regards water? Hosepipe bans in the 5th biggest economy in the world??

Shameful. Build some fekkin pipes to move it around the country.

King RA

That is one possible reason, my 12 fingers could be another

SJ_Skyline

Thats just your parents being related

scoobynutta555

Somewhere like Liverpool?

SJ_Skyline

Yoza's Gaff

pslewis

YUP!!!

Pete

dpb

......france.......

John Catlin

Having been involved in the design of the first ones in this country and most of the others I feel that the best way forward is nuclear using what we have learnt.

King RA

That explains it

Hey mah.....MAH!!! Where's the keys to 'me truyck.....

Markus

A massive yes to more Nuclear power plants. I've been Pro-Nuclear for a fair few years now. It really is the most sensible approach to energy generation.

If you mention Nuclear Reactor people either mention Homer , Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island.

Yes, accidents happen, and the results of such accidents can be very destructive, but if you look at the number of nuclear power plants vs the number of serious incidents I think you'll find it's very small.

There is always the threat of terrorist attacks, and I'm not entierly sure what the security is like at NPP's but I'm sure it's not exactly that lax (trying to recall how easy it is to get into Dungeness (sp?) near Rye).

richiewong

What ever happened to the prospect of cold fusion

SJ_Skyline

http://www.iter.org/

Graz

I was watching a program about Antartica over christmas, the eco system, ice flows, freeze/thaw cycles etc. are a very good indicator of the state of the world environment.

Anyway one of the environmentalists on the program suggested that if the level of pollutants in the atmosphere reaches some critcal level then the enviroment will spiral out of control, i.e. it's past the point of no return. This WILL happen within the next 30 - 50 years. He then went on to advocate the use of Nuclear energy, if we stopped burning fossil fuels for power now, then the critcal level would not be passed.

Apparently the total volume of high level waste generated by the U.K.s reactors, since the first was commissioned, is no greater then the average sized family home. Not exactly hard to dispose of is it, just dig a great big hole, dump it, and fill with lots and lots of concrete.

So yeah more nukes please Just need a high performance electric car then

richiewong

That sound's like any one of the UK's major cities

SJ nice link reminded me of why I failed physics at school all them moons ago

Fat Boy

Had lunch with someone who can't be named last week whose job is to advise the government on the specific details of their energy policy and when asked "So when will the nuclear stations start going up again then?" said "just wait 'til after the election". Totally in support apparently and also supports the cost arguments as decommissioning costs are allegedly a bit of a red herring.

Interestingly, the stations are now regarded as kits :eeek: in that you put your order in and some time later a surprisingly small number of large bits of ready assembled kit arrive for bolting together....

Can't wait for the new mags "Kitcars and nuclear power stations monthly - want to build something with a few extra horses?"

john_s

iTrader: (1)

I don't have an issue with nuclear power... I live less than a mile from the site where most British nuclear fuel is manufactured. I'd not have an issue if they decided to put a reactor on site.

I think a lot of the issues with nuclear power in the UK stem from the 50's when safety was a secondary concern to making as much weapons grade plutonium as quickly as possible.

Properly managed, it is one of the cleanest methods of energy production.

John.

ps - The green glow here is really handy at night as you can manage with a few less lights on.

Petem95

Britain has built some of the safest nuclear power stations for their era's, but thanks to the greenies we stopped building them, and instead import huge amounts of power from less safe French nuclear plants accross the channel, and have loads of highly polluting gas powered stations instead! crazy!

The UK needs a new nuclear build programme asap with stations like the Westinghouse AP1000 or bigger.

hades

To be honest, even the 50's weapons related plant was run with a lot more concern for safety than some of the Russian reactors like Chernobyl. About the most catstrophic thing that could happen to one of those UK reactors would be for the core to catch fire. This has already happened many many years ago at windscale - and whilst the consequences weren't insignficant, it didn't exactly wipe out the whole North West!

Compare that to the large scale devastation that is a real risk if global warming etc and the climate gets out of control, the risk with nuclear is negligible.

Something else I've never seen "the greenies" say. Per worker, the risk of death/injury is MUCH higher per MW generated for wind-turbines than for people in the nuclear industry. There are significant numbers of cases of broken legs or worse for people trying to dock with the off-shore wind-farms in particular.

Pete - I agree w.r.t. the AP1000 etc (& I even remember seeing an early model of the AP1000 in Pittsburgh before it was announced). What's interesting (to me anyway) is that the PWR's are getting bigger, whilst at the other end of the market, a lot of people seem to think the relatively small Pebble-Ped reactors are the way forward, at least for developing countries.

Vegescoob

Yes, only way to go for energy independence.

boomer

If, in order to get the contract, such a deal should agree to fund UP FRONT any monies to decommission the existing nuclear mess, then maybe i would think about it.

Forget about projections - nuclear energy has cost this country (over tens of years) an AWFUL lot of money. British Energy (such a nice name for what should be British Messy Radioactive ****e) is currently defaulting on a massive loan (illegal under the EU) to prop up it's current business! Loans - as in will never be paid back - thus funded by you and me the tax payer!!

Windscale (Selatape) will be glowing for thousands of years

I'd rather lose my computer/mobile, than support such a destructive (and corporate moneyspinner) nu-que-lar (as Dubya would put it) strategy!



mb

hades

The cash to "fund up front any monies to decommission the existing nuclear mess" has already been set aside three times over. First from generation from C.E.G.B. Then the government as the main shareholder dipped into it and used it all. The money was replaced by privatising a load of the electricity industry. Then the government as main shareholder dipped into it and used it all. Then it was funded from the "fossil fuel levy". Then the government . . . you get the picture.

Under Radioactive Substances Act, a jar of Brazillian coffee bought off the shelf from Sainsbury's would be termed "low level radioactive waste", and be much more radioactive than a large proportion of the "Messy Radioactive ****e" that is getting treated. At the UK's largest Magnox plant, the radioactivity levels went up by several hundred percent one day - because as part of "site beautification", some landscapers had laid down cornish granite chippings. Fact is places like planes on long-haul flights and Cornish Beaches are much more radioactive places to be than the pilecap of a nuclear reactor.

Anyone ever see any of the fossil fuelled plants having to pay to return their power stations to green field sites, and pay for all the damage caused to the environment by pumping millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Does that include the projection that they expect ALL the accessable fossil fuel in the world to be burned up by 2050? What would you intend to use to create electricity then?